 Gw predictive of the Justice Committee's 13th and Ffairow meeting of 2016. We have apologies from Oliver Mundell. Agenda item number one, decision on taking item in private. Item six and seven are consideration of the committee's approach to the security of the railway police in Scotland bill at stage 1. Consideration of its work programme is the committee's way of working Is the committee content to take these items in private? Agenda item 2, draft budget, scrutiny 2017-18. I welcome to the committee the right honourable James Wolfe QC, Lord Advocate and David Harvey, Crown Agent and Chief Executive of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is the first time that either of you have appeared before the committee, and we very much look forward to working with you over this session. I refer members to paper 1, which is a note from the clerk, and paper 2, which is spice briefing. The current agent has also put in a written submission to the current procurator Fiscal COPF Service Inquiry, which is partially relevant to this morning's session. I thank you for that. I believe that Lord Advocate would like to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, convener. I thank you for inviting me to give evidence and for permitting me to make some preliminary remarks, conscious as I am that this is my first appearance before your committee as Lord Advocate. I look forward very much to working with you during this session and my period of office. Can I say that your inquiry into the work of the prosecution services is, from my point of view, timely, and I am looking forward to coming back, as I understand it in January, to discuss in more detail the evidence that you have received. I understand the purpose of the hearing today is budget scrutiny. As you have indicated, convener, I am here with the Crown Agent, who is the chief executive and accountable officer of the service. I would like to simply make a few observations to set the discussion about the budget in context. The first is that the media regularly reports on high-profile prosecutions in which they have been brought to a successful conclusion. Those cases that attract public and media attention are only the most visible part of the work of the service, which day in and day out across Scotland successfully prosecutes crime and secures the fair and effective administration of the criminal law. It is important that I say that at my first appearance before your committee, because I know that some of the evidence that you have received has reflected negatively on the service. I take seriously the issues that have been raised in the evidence before you, but the starting point for addressing the work of the service should be that the Crown Office and Procurate Fiscal Service is an organisation that day in and day out fulfills its basic fundamental public responsibilities as the prosecutor of crime in Scotland and does so effectively. The second point that I would like to make at the outset is that this is an organisation that, over the past 15 years, has shown a remarkable capacity for change. It was at the forefront in Scotland of recognising the needs of victims of crime. It has adjusted rapidly to significant developments in the law, and it embraces the potential of technological advance and procedural reform. The service had already identified some of the issues that have been raised in the evidence before you, and we will be glad to address specific issues that you wish to raise with us. What the evidence has taken as a whole demonstrates is the case for reform of the criminal justice system. You will be aware that we are at an unusual moment where significant reform across the justice system is in prospect. I believe that we would fail the people whom we serve if we were not to grasp the opportunities of that moment. I am certainly committed, and I know that the Crown Agent is committed to working with all the agencies involved as we seek to create a justice system that reflects the needs of 21st century Scotland. Finally, if I might make just a brief observation about the budget, I have to take a realistic view about the pressures on public sector funding. The revenue and capital budgets of the service are the same in cash terms as last year. That is the basis upon which the service has undertaken its forward financial planning. You will no doubt wish in a moment to look in detail at the budget figures, but I would like to make clear to the committee at the outset that the service will continue with the budget allocation to prosecute crime in the year ahead effectively, rigorously and in the public interest. Can I remind members that the evidence session is on the 2017-18 Crown Office budget, and just to stress again that it is not the wider issues raised during our current inquiry? Obviously, there will be a slight overlap and I will allow a little bit of latitude on that, but in general, the session is about the budget, and the Lord Advocate will be attending early in the new year to answer questions about the issue during the inquiry. With that, can I open and co-open it to questions from members? Douglas Ross, John Finnie. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Mr Harvey and Lord Advocate. Can I first ask the Lord Advocate on your submission through Mr Harvey? There is a statement made that to protect your constitutional independence, the Lord Advocate deals directly with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. Can I ask when you go into these meetings, are you the Crown Office representative in the Scottish Government or the Scottish Government's representative in the Crown Office when you go into those particular discussions? Yes. The short answer is that I am the Lord Advocate. As Lord Advocate, I am the head of the prosecution system in Scotland. That is a function that I exercise independently, both by statute and for constitutional reasons. I go into those discussions as the Lord Advocate, with my responsibilities as Lord Advocate in my mind. You have dual responsibilities as a member of the Government and the head of the Crown Office. When you are dealing on financial terms with a fellow member of the Government, which priority do you lead with, is it for the Crown Office within the Scottish Government or the Scottish Government member on behalf of the Crown Office? I think that it is perhaps artificial to seek to divide up my different functions. I go into those discussions as I go into any discussion that I go into as Lord Advocate, as the independent head of the prosecution system in Scotland. As the head of any public service in Scotland has to be in the current environment, I have to be realistic about the public financial circumstances that we live in. However, my responsibility is to prosecute crime in Scotland, effectively, rigorously, fairly and independently. If you can differentiate with the way that I am trying to ask that question, which of those two statements would you agree with most? As you come out of that meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, would you agree more with the Scottish Criminal Bar Association, who say that it is absolutely astonishing that the Scottish Government should cut the Crown Office budget, or would you agree with Derek Mackay that it is a sound settlement for the service? I think that the first thing to be clear about is that, in terms of the revenue and capital budgets, the service will receive the same cash funding as it received last year. I will come on to that in a minute. I know that you will want to look in detail at that proposition, and I understand that. Those are two quite stark responses from different sides. The Scottish Government ministers are saying that it is a sound settlement for your service, yet the Scottish Criminal Bar Association says that it is absolutely astonishing that there should be cuts to the budget. Which one would you think is more accurate? It is a settlement that is consistent with the forward financial planning of the service. It is a settlement in which I am confident that we will continue to prosecute crime effectively in Scotland in the coming year. It is a settlement that I am advised that is consistent with the settlement for other justice agencies, broadly speaking. From that point of view, it is a settlement that enables me in the forthcoming financial year to fulfil my public responsibilities. I would like clarity on that, because there is some confusion. Do you agree with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance that it is a sound settlement for the service, or do you agree with the Criminal Bar Association for Scotland, which says that it is absolutely astonishing that there should be cuts to the COPFS budget? It is a sound settlement for the service on the basis that I have just described to you. For the reason that I mentioned a moment ago, I think that to describe it as a cut in the way that Mr Ross articulated it is not the full picture. Is there a real-terms reduction in your budget? There is a real-terms reduction, because— Do you think that that is a sound settlement? It is because we have secured, in revenue and capital terms, the same cash as last year. There is an important point that I know that you will want to discuss. It may be that the Crown Agent will be a better place than I am to discuss the detail of it, but £1.4 million, or an apparent reduction of £1.4 million, is, as I understand it, a change in the allowance made for depreciation that does not affect the cash that is available for the running of the service. I will come on to that, if I can, but if you take a look at your level 3 funding, do you have that? For example, staff costs in 2016-17 were £73.4 million. In 2017-18 there will be £72.3 million. That is a real-terms reduction in staff costs. Office costs remain the same, therefore there is a reduction there. Centrally managed costs are what you have just touched on, but if that is not the case, I would be interested in more information. If you look at the headline figures on table 14.2, which is the level 2 spending, there is a £4 million reduction, and I know that that has been explained in Mr Harvey's letter, but I would be interested, first of all, in terms of the level 3 funding, do you accept that there is a real-term decrease in the funding that is available, for example, staff costs? It is perhaps more sensible of Mr Harvey's response to that. The position in terms of the initial position in relation to the £4 million, and then my assessment in relation to the £1.7 million, and then I will go down to the staffing if I may? No, I would rather you start with staffing because I will come on to the other issue. So staffing was my question in this case. Is there a real-terms reduction from last year's budget to this year's budget for the amount of money that you can spend on staffing? Yes or no? So we have a real-terms reduction in our perspective on the revenue budget of around £1.4 million, and our estimate is that 50 per cent of that cut in revenue in real terms will have to be achieved by non-staff costs and 50 per cent by staffing costs. So yes, that would be an answer. Yes, but I am trying to give more detail. No, that is useful, but to get a clear answer for the record, there is a reduction in the amount of money that the Crown Office will be able to spend on staff with this sound settlement, which was delivered by the Scottish Government in their words, so not mine. So we will have a £1.4 million cut in revenue. So what we are planning for is 50 per cent savings on staff costs and 50 per cent on non-staff. I do not know whether that is more for the Lord Advocate. Given the evidence that we have received at this inquiry, do you think that that is sensible to be going forward with a reduction in staff costs at a time when we have been told by numerous witnesses almost unanimously that, in fact, you need more resources? No one has questioned the ability of your staff. Indeed, that has been praised time and time again, but it has been said at almost every session that they are under resourced. Therefore, if you are going to implement a cut in the staffing budget, does that not give concerns for the future of the service this year? I think that it is important to, when one is thinking about the future of the prosecution service, to not to look at it in isolation from the wider criminal justice system. As I said a moment ago, we are at a moment when we are looking at systemic change, which is likely to alter the system in ways that will make it much more acceptable from the perspective of victims, witnesses and, indeed, accused persons. I think that it is a mistake to think that one solves challenges and difficulties simply by putting additional resources into it rather than looking at them. That may be your opinion, though. However, what I was trying to get across on my question was the opinion from numerous witnesses to this committee is that more resources are required. If you do not feel that is a requirement, then we will hear that from you in January. However, at a time when all those witnesses are saying at an important inquiry, which you said was very timuous and you were very interested in the outcomes, if we have people who are at the co-face telling us that we need more resources, yet they see this budget settlement from the Scottish Government, presumably agreed in consultation with you, that actually sees a reduction in the amount of money that you can spend on the staff within that service, I am not sure how you can marry up those two statements. Well, for two reasons. First of all, the service has planned for the coming year on the basis of the assumption or the scenario of the same cash, revenue and capital terms. That is the settlement that we have achieved. Secondly, in terms of specific areas of challenge for the service, I am interested in looking at ways in which we can perform the various functions that we have to perform more effectively. By looking at procedural changes, looking at changes in the way that we do things, I am interested in the potential that is very real for changes in the justice system across the piece of which Crown Office is only one part. All of that has implications for resourcing. I think that it is not correct to think that the only way to solve our problem is simply to apply more resources to it. Can I just make this clear, Mr Ross? If I am satisfied exercising my responsibility as Lord Advocate, that in order to fulfil the fundamental functions of the service, I require additional funding from the Government. I will not hesitate to ask for it. You have not asked for it in the settlement. I can give an example in the period of my predecessor's office when he sought and was given additional funding, which at that time was required specifically to deal with a series of significant cases. If, again, I am faced with a specific demand, a specific need that requires more funding, and I am satisfied that, in the exercise of my public responsibilities, I need more funding for that purpose, then I will ask for it. I worry then that we have a scenario where you have to go cap in hand to the Scottish Government asking for more money, rather than seeing at this time when you go into your discussions, as the independent head of the Crown Office, with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to get a sound settlement, which he described as in Parliament. You have reiterated a similar view today, yet the FDA union, when it came to this committee to give evidence, Fiona Eadie said, I fully expect our senior manager to give evidence to the Parliament and say that he can probably just about manage to deliver the same service again with the same money next year. She then went on to say, however, if the committee wants to see the sorts of improvements that we have spoken about today and the standard of service that we all want to deliver and that the people of Scotland expect additional resources are required, I am not sure that Fiona Eadie, people in the FDA union or anyone having watched the evidence sessions of this committee or experiencing the issues that have been raised here in the court system up and down the country will take much comfort from your answer today. Would I like to have more money? There would be no head of any public service in Scotland who would not like to have more by way of resources. Can I deliver a prosecution service that is fundamentally doing the job that is there to do, which is to prosecute crime effectively, rigorously and fairly, with the settlement that we have achieved? I believe that I can. I should say that I was very pleased, Mr Ross, that at the outset you paid, you acknowledged the evidence about the quality of the staff in the service. I have been very pleased to read the evidence that you have received about the quality of the staff, because that vindicates something that I have been saying from my very first day in office, which is to emphasise the trust and confidence that I have in the staff who prosecute on my authority up and down Scotland. Maybe just so that we can answer both points, because the convener will not give me much more leeway. Can I ask you to also answer, Mr Harvey, about the element of your submission that speaks about the £0.95 million that was transferred in the year, and that was for Violence Against Women initiative. That will also be provided during 2017-18. If you know that now, why is that not included in the budget figures presented to Parliament? It was not included in the budget figure for the initial position last year, either, because it is received in the year. We normally get that around September or October, and we know that there is a line in the justice budget, and that funding will be delivered. However, when you speak about the 2016-17 draft budget compared with the actual budget, surely that would be known for this year's draft budget as well, yet it is being included after the draft budget settlement. Is it received the same treatment as it did last year when we presented that? That is my question. Why should it receive the same treatment as last year? Why can't it just go in? If you know that you are getting that funding, why does that £0.95 million go in? It could equally be presented that way, but we have presented it consistently as we did last year in relation to funding that will arrive during the course of the year, rather than funding that we start the year with. How often have you received that funding? That will be the third year, and it is the final year of that particular funding commitment. Sorry, I think that Mr Harvie wanted to answer an earlier question. If I may, convener, there is also a matter about how you spend money, and it may assist the committee to understand, regardless of what funding we have available for staff and the choices that are being made. It may assist the committee to know that there are up-to-date figures in relation to numbers of legal staff. We now have 533 members of legal staff. The high point in the entirety of the service was in 2009-10 when we had 547. It is about 14 away from the all-time high, and it has actually been growing each year for the last three or four years. The other thing in terms of decisions in relation to front-line staff, are course staff grades of senior and deputy. Since 2009, the figure was 285, and the figure now is 354. Choices are being made within the envelope that is available to us in order to ensure that we invest in staff who are in the courts. It is a narrow technical point that relates to where Mr Ross started on the relationship between the Lord Advocate and the Government. The Scotland Act 1998, under section 45 of that act, which appoints members to the Government, under section 47 of that act, appoints the people whom we now describe as cabinet ministers, but the act describes them as ministers. People who are appointed under section 49 are described in the act, and junior ministers are not members of the Government. At no point in the appointment of members of the Government does it include the Lord Advocate. Am I correct in assuming that, in legal terms, you are an adviser to the Scottish Government, as well as being head of the prosecution service, but you are not a member of the Scottish Government? That, in fact, is incorrect. By statute, the law officers are members of the Scottish Government in the same way that the Attorney General in England Wales is a member of the UK Government. The Lord Advocate exercises what are called retained functions, which are the functions as head of the system of prosecution and investigation of deaths. Those are functions that the Lord Advocate exercised long before devolution over many centuries and which are exercised by statute and constitutionally, independently of any other person. Those are the particular functions that we are here to discuss. You are a man of two hats, two brains and you leave some of them outside of the door when you meet with the Government as a member of the Government. I am very clear that, as head of the system of prosecution and when I exercise my retained functions, the responsibilities rest with me and with me alone. I thank you for your written evidence and your opening remarks. I am glad, Lord Advocate, that you picked up the very clear message that we got that there was no criticism whatsoever of the staff that the highest standards are appreciated that we go through. I would like to ask a few short questions to Mr Harry, please. It is picking up on the point that Mr Ross made about the settlement of just under £1 million for violence against women. The fact that it is recurring. In the paragraph when you alluded to that, Mr Harvie, you concluded by saying, and I quote to her, that this means that, whilst it looks as though our cash settlement is decreased and expenditure and staff cost is reduced, in fact it is not. Can you maybe just… In cash terms. In cash terms. In real terms, there is undoubtedly a decrease in revenue and a small decrease in capital. The figure that was used in the briefing, I think overall, was a reference to £4 million, which made reference also to the depreciation sum. The reality is that, in terms of funding actually available to the service in real terms, our calculation is that it is approximately £1.5 million in revenue and about £100,000 in capital is the real terms impact. I was also going to ask about what you referred to as our expected depreciation profile, because you also talked about medium-ten financial strategy that you were following. I was just wondering, is the settlement, regardless of its merits, is it within the scope of what you had been considering? It is within the scope of the various projections that we had considered. I was astonished by, and I do not know if it is a misprint, but it is the phrase in here, some 7.5 per cent of our budget is currently spent on mortuary and pathology costs. Is that correct? Yes. It seems an astonishing figure. It is millions of pounds. What opportunity, I know that you are alluding to opportunities, the Christy principles of collaborative working, have they been fully examined in relation to that to reduce that cost? We do consider that, and that is why we have highlighted it there, that there will be opportunities going forward in relation to that service provision. There has been a petition at this Parliament about mortuary facilities, I do not know if you are aware of that, but perhaps that is something that comes from a woman in Murray and our concerns about facilities. Is that something that you could look at and opportunity again there? All of those factors would be part of our consideration going forward in relation to how we deal with those contracts. You talk about the appointment of a director of procurement, is there any projection as to that? That is also in relation to the re-letting of contracts and improved contract management. There is also mention of telecoms contract that has recently been re-let. Will you be able to give any indication of savings in relation to that, please? The telecoms contract that we anticipate will be saving in excess of 15 per cent. It will also deal with some of the issues that the committee has heard from other witnesses from in relation to the difficulties with the 08 number. It will be an 03 number. The 03 number enables members of the public or slisters who have mobile packages and 03 number counts towards that for free minutes, etc. It also has the same overall cost as an 01 or an 02 number. Finally, Mr Havey, you talk about overall staff numbers. We will start to reduce. Can you give any indication if that would include Fiscal's Depute at all? It may, but we would be seeking to avoid that situation where possible. As I said, we have made it very clear that my answer to Mr Ross is that there are choices available to us in the staffing profile as we go forward. One of the things that we have done in the past and in quite dramatic changes is that there were, historically, I think, 2,939 senior civil servants in the organisations now down to 24. Those types of choices, I use that simply for illustration, enable us to select in terms of what we assess our demand, might be what the best options would be to deal with that. I am pleased to see that there will be no compulsory redundancies and that you are hoping to achieve savings through digitisation of processes and sheriff and duty reform. I want to ask you a wee bit about your long-term financial planning. Your submission talks about your medium term. The Auditor General has told us that she has emphasised the benefits of long-term financial planning. How realistic is it for you to be able to do that at this stage? We are engaging in that exercise and it has actually been a very fruitful one. I noted with interest the Auditor General's evidence. It is fair to say that, having embarked on that exercise, we have found it extremely beneficial. We have had extremely significant assistance and advice from the Auditor General's office and from our internal audit and non-executives. As part of the financial sustainability plan, there were a number of assumptions, risks, etc. For a variety of different scenarios that were identified. We have tested those robustly, including with the internal and external auditors and the non-executives, all of whom were very positive about the approach that we were taking. We have contributed towards those exercises. We feel as if we are in a significantly more robust position, both in the medium and long term. It came out in the evidence to the Auditor General. I think that there was some question and debate about the value, the longer you look. I think that that is fair, but the key with that is to continue to revisit it. I would regard that as something that has been a really positive development that certainly has assisted us greatly in relation to scenario planning. It is something that we will be constantly revisiting in the months and years to come. I think that you have heard from a number of members the evidence that we have received about the quality of the work that is done within the service, but a constant refrain has been around the problems that have been created by having such a large number of staff on short-term contracts. I think that the Auditor General made the point that, in terms of deriving best benefit from the investment that you are making in training and all the rest of it, that does not seem to be a sound strategy, albeit that she recognised as being suggested in the evidence to us that some level of short-term contracts are probably going to be required to manage peaks and flows. Could you perhaps talk in a little more detail what precisely is envisaged in terms of the workforce planning that will allow you to move more of the staff on or away from short-term contracts? It is a development and it is actually one of the things that has been, in a strange way, quite encouraging to hear during the evidence, because as the Lord Advocate touched on, a number of the things that have come out in evidence were already matters that we had identified and were working through. The workforce strategy had already recognised that there was a significant issue in relation to the balance of permanent to fixed-term staff, for a variety of reasons. Obviously, as you rightly identified, training and retraining costs, but also separately, just that sense of cohesion with teams, people knowing that the people that they are working with will be there long-term and it is worthwhile not only training them but investing time and improving the culture. I personally am determined that that balance will change dramatically. People will comment on the timing. The timing is completely coincidental, just in terms of the product of that planning now coming to fruition. As an indication in advance of Christmas, which was my intention, I sent out a message earlier this week indicating that two things, first of all, in relation to those staff who are on a temporary promotion—again, that is an issue. There are quite large numbers that are on temporary promotion in percentage terms—that is something that, in the first quarter of the financial year, we will be seeking to address in order to identify those posts that are demonstrably permanent and seeking to fill them permanently at that grade. Separately, and in addition to that, both in terms of administrative staff and legal staff, there is a similar exercise that requires to be conducted that is now coming to fruition, which we envisage will enable us to recruit a significant number of staff on a permanent basis from within the existing pool on a competitive basis. I welcome what you are saying, which seems to go some way to addressing the concerns that we have been hearing over recent weeks, but you are talking about a dramatic change against the backdrop of what Mr Ross was exploring with you of staff reduction costs over the next financial year. How are you accommodating that? Presumably, this will put additional stress on your staff budget, even if it gives you greater predictability. It gives greater predictability. Again, one of the benefits of the approach that we have taken is that it has given us an opportunity to scenario plan in a situation where we have the sort of settlement that we have. The reality is that we are already paying for these people, if you like, and they are already making a significant contribution. The issue is the impact that that would have in the medium to longer term by making the commitment to make them permanent. One of the things that we have done is to look through the numbers that leave the service for other reasons, whether it is retirement, getting jobs elsewhere, etc. Through natural wastage, I think, is the term that is used, which is a horrendous term, but you know what I mean. We are actually making very significant proportions of the temporary staff permanent. We are still looking at that figure of natural departures. We would have the ability to flex in accordance with the types of pressures that we have identified this year. Just looking at the budget profile over recent years, and we have heard from the auditor general that criticism in only the way that the auditor general can provide it should have been done from a number of years back. Why is it worth seeing the decision to move to more permanent contracts and a greater stability in the service now, when there is not a great deal of change in the budget? Presumably, those decisions could have been taken two or three years ago at the very least. There have been some changes in the budget that help in forming that decision. I think that there are also just points about decisions having to be made. For example, there was additional funding a couple of years ago that has now been baselined in the budget, which I think gives us greater certainty. Beyond that, there is no doubt that we have reached a critical mass where it has become an issue. It is a matter that, on the back of the workforce planning, we have a far greater level of confidence that we can now address proactively, and that is what we will be doing in the first quarter of the year. One other issue that has come up quite routinely through the evidence that we have taken is the concern about the implications of the move to centralised marking. One of the arguments in favour of it has been the additional level of expertise that can be brought to bear in a more centralised system, but also the efficiencies that it gives to the service. Given the concerns that we have heard, clearly what is in place at the moment to my mind does not appear to be working, what is your view of the efficiencies of the savings that this system allows you to generate within the budget? What will be the financial implications of going back to a system in which there will be more localised input or localised marking? I wonder if I might make an introductory comment and let the Crown Agent deal with the more operational aspect of the question. My own view is that, for a national prosecution service, it is not acceptable today to have anything other than national standards and national criteria. The national case marking arrangements allow us to secure consistency in the way that marking decisions are made across the country. It is fair to say—and Crown Agent is a better place now to speak to this—that the use of marking as it were away from the local area is not a new phenomenon. It has become systematised in the national case marking arrangements. The arrangements that are in place are able to accommodate particular needs and local variations through the systems that are in place. By approaching marking on a national basis, we are able to address the need for local variation in a systematic manner. Does that not kick against the fact that individual judges and individual JPs have done and always will come at issues with a particular perspective that it will influence the way in which they come to a conclusion? Even with national marking, you are still going to find that there will be variability in terms of what each court comes up with by way of a conclusion, not necessarily in the measures. One of the concerns is that there is a lack of understanding about the options that are open to dealing with a particular case because it is central in the centre of the market. My understanding is that the systems in place are able to accommodate and provide the relevant information to those doing the marking. I am making the more fundamental point, which is that, for a national prosecution service, it seems to me right that we approach criminality across Scotland in a consistent manner. I think that it is important that I say that. We will come back to this in January, because I know that we are staying into that with the budgetary elements of this. I think that I am probably more relevant. We will come back to this in January and we welcome the opportunity to discuss in more detail, but I think that there is a fundamental point that we need to make to start, which was that this was not a binary situation of individual cases being marked in 40-odd offices across the country and then all of a sudden in national hunts. The reality is that centralised marking in a variety of different forms has existed within the service for many years. Indeed, under the previous federation structure, which I think that you have heard some evidence about as well, there were federation hubs as well. There was a logical extension in the creation of that model. I think that one of the misconceptions that has been in some of the evidence, which I again would be happy to touch on more in detail in January, is that all of a sudden, as a result of the creation of NICP, that in some way meant that there was a loss of local contact. The building of NICP was very carefully developed in order to try and ensure that the localism was protected. There is a preponderance of diversion schemes across the country, and that would be helpful as a justice committee if we could talk about that in January, in the context of a national marking hub. I appreciate what is available in local areas and whether there is an issue about the availability of certain options in local areas. That is a matter that we can discuss then. It is fair to say that, from our perspective, one of the key benefits in terms of efficiencies is that you have an identifiable group of people who, for example, in relation to the prosecution policy review, when you introduce a change in policy, you have a targeted group of individuals who you can introduce with intensive training, and they are responsible for the vast bulk of the marking that is created, as opposed to having to train larger numbers as intensively. There are a variety of things, not just in relation to efficiencies in relation to numbers, but also going forward the on-going costs of supporting that model creates and in itself some efficiencies. I would like to say that the staff in NICP, in keeping with the evidence that you have heard, have done extraordinarily well with a new model, but we are also not insisting that the model, as it is defined, is not capable of refinement. One of the things that has been beneficial from the inquiry is to look at the evidence that relates to that, and that will be fed down in relation to seeking to further improve that approach. The point specifically that has been raised in evidence is the fact that central marking would dispose of a case in a certain way. It might be a fixed penalty fine. The person may appear several times thereafter and might not be paying that fixed penalty fine. Local disposals might have been, as a result of them being centrally marked, aware of that, more effectively dealt with that case. The budgetary position or the financial implication is that people are turning up time and time again unnecessarily, perhaps at a local level, because it has not been dealt with properly. The indication that we received was that there was not a knowledge of the potential and possible referrals that could have been made. Is that something that you have taken on board from the inquiry? I have heard that evidence. I have also seen the supporting evidence. For example, there was some evidence about the decreased use of diversion schemes, but when the evidence was submitted that did not really demonstrate that level of decrease, it suggested that there was the lock and the knowledge was still there. That was the sacro evidence, where a large number of the options that were available appeared to have increased. It is perhaps something that we can explore in further detail in January. In terms of the availability of diversion schemes, suitable diversion schemes are something that I personally and I know prosecutors across the country are enthused about as a constructive way of dealing with criminality to avoid repetition. However, in so far as the penalties are concerned, as in when those penalties are awarded, it is fair to say that the figures that we have—which, again, I am very happy to provide to the committee—indicate that there was a suggestion that people were just getting repeated fixed penalty notices or fiscal fines. We have some information in relation to the numbers that might assist the committee in more detail. It is probably best if I do not go into them just now, but I think that we might be able to provide you with some reassurance in relation to their use and their recovery. Or does the amount of unpaid fines cause you some concern? I think that the evidence from Mr McQueen was that the recovery was about 80 per cent. I think that in relation to court fines, the numbers are slightly higher. Forgive me, I do not have that evidence to hand. In monetary terms? In monetary terms. How much is not collected? From record, it will be 20 per cent. I do not know what that figure would be. Are we going into millions? I do not know. I do not have that figure, but I will get that figure for you in general. Perhaps that would be a good figure to see, because 80 per cent sounds very good, but equally, if there are millions being unpaid, then that is money that could be into the system. Good morning. Apologies for the voice. I will try not to croak too much. I want to ask a further question about the savings that you plan to make from staff costs. Given the huge legislative changes that have been in the past few years that have affected the way the Crown Office works and further changes in legislation that will have an impact on the work of the Crown Office, are you confident that, given the size of the savings that you have to make, there will be no impact on the service that you provide, but that you will be able within the budget to properly train and support the staff that you have to carry out the services that they do? Given that there will be an increase in specialist services and specialist courts, which adds another dimension, are you confident that you have enough, given the savings that you are going to have to make? Perhaps I could make a couple of high-level observations and then ask the Crown Agent to comment specifically. I suppose that the first point to make is that this is a service that has absorbed remarkable changes over the course of my professional lifetime. I was an advocate deput when we were dealing with the arrival of disclosure with the effects of Salduz and Cader. It is a service that was at the forefront of recognising the needs of victims of crime and responding to them. It is a service that, in the course of my professional lifetime, has embraced change and absorbed significant changes. I have every reason to be confident that it is a service that will go on to adapt to change and to deal with the challenges that face it. That is a general observation about the capacity of the organisation and its approach to the changing environment. In terms of specialism, you are absolutely right that the world is becoming more specialist within the COPFS. There are now specialist units that deal with a variety of different aspects of criminality. Scotland was at the forefront in relation to sexual offending by setting up the national sex crimes unit. Specialism, again, is something that the service has shown itself comfortable with if I put it that way. As one goes forward and looks at future legislative change, one will have to look at each set of proposals on its own merits. There will be changes that will impose demands on the service and there will be changes, particularly if one is looking at the broader potential of criminal justice reform and the kind of work that is being done through the Scottish Court Service Evidence and Procedure Review. There may be changes that will have benefits for the public at large and may alter the kind of work that the service needs to do. I think that it would be very difficult to give any sort of short answer other than to say that this is a service that has shown itself able to absorb changes in the external environment, changes in legislation and I'd have confidence that it would continue to do so. However, the Crown Agent may wish to add his own remarks. I agree with you in relation to the importance of training. It perhaps might assist the committee in contrast to 2011. We've increased the amount of money that we spend on training by 75 per cent. That is across a range of different topics, not only the specialisms that Lord Advocate has pitched up, but also in relation to other matters such as the development of our managers and our leaders in the organisation, so that we invest in training. As far as the legislation is going forward, for example in relation to the new domestic abuse bill, we are in discussion with Scottish Government officials in preparing a financial memorandum for that bill and those discussions are on-going. In relation to the budget that you have for training, is the budget for training increasing while the budget for staff costs is decreasing? We have managed to increase the budget on training by 75 per cent during the course of the five-year period that I have described. However, at the same time, you will recall that, during the five years that I have described, we have also been able to increase staffing numbers. Against the budget constraints that we have already had to deal with over the last several years, we have actually been able to make, I would suggest, some very positive choices in relation to investing in training and investing in staff. We now have over 1600 full-time equivalent staff. If you look at the pattern over the past three to five years, it is an increase notwithstanding the constraints that we have been subject to. It is about making intelligent choices within what is available to us. Hello, Mr Harvie, for attending today. My question has already been covered and it falls on from Mary Fee's question. Obviously, you have identified that you need to live in the current financial circumstances and the funding cuts that are coming from the Westminster Government are well documented. In terms of the specialist areas, are you confident in continuing to meet and develop the domestic violence agenda and continuing to prosecute in the vein that you have been over the past period? Thank you. The short answer is yes. I can elaborate on that. I am conscious that there are a number of issues that have been raised in the course of the evidence in your inquiry, which you may wish to come back and discuss with us. I am sorry, but I should have said that I am talking specifically about the funding that you are getting for the violence against women. If that is enough to maintain the current standard of prosecution? As the Crown agent said, we expect to have the same funding in year transferred to support the work on violence against women. That is a specific piece of funding that is directed to seeking to ensure that those cases are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The figures would support the view that it has been successful in that regard. I have no reason to believe that we will not continue to be able to do that. I may expand a little more detail. We have the funding for a further year. It might assist the committee if I give some of the tangible benefits that have resulted from that £2.4 million in funding each year to ourselves and the court service. Part of it is allocated to the court service, part of it has been allocated to COPFS. That has enabled us to recruit additional prosecutors and administrative staff for those purposes. It involved a lot of excellent joint work with the court service. The net result is that, in the first two years, the number of sheriff court trials outstanding dropped from 23,500 to 16,900. In the JP courts from 11,800 to just over 9,000, which is a collective reduction of just under 9,500 trials. In terms of additional courts during that two-year period that would not otherwise have been able to run, there were 647 extra justice of the peace courts and more than 1,100 extra sheriff courts. If it assists the committee, that is an example of what £2.4 million by aides. I have not strained too much into questions that might be more appropriate for our next session. Do you think that the focus on domestic violence and the focus that you have discussed there could help to reduce it and have a cultural change in the future? I know that we are thinking long term here, but we are reducing the amount of people who come to court for those types of offences because we change behaviour and attitudes towards that type of offence. You are focusing on the policy question, which is one for me. There are perhaps two, or maybe three, points to make. The first is that this is an area of criminality that for far too long was not taken sufficiently seriously by the criminal justice system. The second point to make is that when I or the service prosecute a domestic abuse case, we prosecute it because a crime has been committed. I take the view that it is correct whether there is sufficient evidence in law to have strong presumptions in favour of prosecution of this particular type of offending. I say that firstly because of the impact that it has on victims and other members of a family, particularly children. However, I also say it because, as you alluded to against the background of the way historically that this type of offending was dealt with, it is important that the criminal justice system sends out a very clear message about what is acceptable and, more important, what is not acceptable in today's Scotland. If I could just press you a little bit more on that, Lord Advocate, the cases are dealt with expeditiously and there is a strong presumption in favour of prosecution, but surely that cannot be, as the defence agents have said, where there is a perception that the prioritisation of domestic abuse cases in the context of scarce resources meant that money was sometimes being wasted on cases with little prospect of conviction at the expense of other summary cases. Clearly, if that was the case, that is not in anyone's interests. It does not make sense financially. It certainly does not make sense in emotional terms for the victim or for witnesses, anyone involved. All of that is correct if that were the case, convener. The first point that I want to make very clear is that a prosecution should not be brought in relation to any case, unless there is sufficient evidence and law. There have been suggestions, I think, and at least one witnesses evidence that that basic proposition is not one that is adhered to, certainly from my point of view, that is the starting point here. The strong presumption for prosecution presupposes that there is sufficient evidence in law. The second point that I would like to make is that, if one looks at the statistics in domestic abuse cases that went to trial last year, the conviction was secured in 80 per cent, 80 per cent. I do not think that it will be lost on the committee that these are cases that are maybe inherently difficult to prosecute. There are cases where, for reasons that will be intelligible complainers and not always who may initially engage with the system may become unwilling or less willing to give evidence, notwithstanding the particular difficulties in the particular types of cases. Last year, convictions were secured in 80 per cent of the cases that went to trial. That does not suggest to me that the kind of problem that you are describing is one that is causing the kind of difficulties systemically that I think the question that you have asked convener might convey. I think that there will probably be more questions than that in January, but it was to look at the budgetary at the expense of summary cases, which brings me on to churn if I could just perhaps pursue that for a minute. Do you accept that there is churn in the court that this comes at a cost and how would you address it? I certainly accept that, particularly in summary cases, there is churn. There are a variety of reasons for it. The fundamental answer is to look at systemic reform. I would certainly commend a reading of part A of the Scottish court services evidence and procedure review, which sets out the vision that the court service has for summary justice reform, which Crown Office is actively engaged in with other criminal justice partners. Can I put to you what Derek Ogg told us when he gave evidence? Derek Ogg from the Faculty of Advocates suggested that the decision to make less use of recognitions based on the lack of resources could prolong cases, thus wasting resources. There has been a change in the approach to recognition. That change followed on the radical changes in the law on disclosure. The current policy follows what is called purpose-driven recognition. In other words, rather than a recognition process in which Crown Office interviews witnesses who have already given police statements, the decision to recognize a witness should be based on our view that there is a particular need to recognize a witness in addition to the police statements that have already been obtained and which are available to the accused and his defence agents. Again, it is something that we will pursue in January, but there is perhaps a certain art to recognition that the police may not always have, but that is something that we will do. It is perhaps something to pursue further in January. I understand the point that has been made, but if the question is whether there is a change that is driven by financial considerations, it predated my time. The Crown Office may not be able to say more about it, but my understanding was that it was a deliberate policy decision taken against the background of the radical change in practice that followed from the changes in the law of disclosure. In answering perhaps, Mr Havie, you could address whether, if it was not taken for financial reasons, perhaps it is having an impact now financially? It was not taken for financial reasons, it was taken, as Lord Advocate said, in relation to changes in disclosure. It also, for good or bad, reflected the realities of the way in which trials are conducted these days, particularly by statement. Therefore, witness positions have become traditionally crystallised in pre-statements that can be put to witnesses, which a recognition can't. One of the key issues was ensuring that we have tempered our very onerous and important disclosure obligations in a way that enabled the defence to have all of the material and then have that material in a format that enabled them to put the two witnesses. We are all sorts of positive reasons for going down the route that we have described. It is not an abandonment of recognition, it is about more focused recognition, where we think that that recognition will add value. For example, in relation to serious sexual offending cases, it is highly likely, if not nearly always, that that individual would be recognised. As far as the cost and the impact are concerned, that is completely intangible, because of the way in which the way in which a trial is conducted has changed so dramatically since disclosure and then since particularly the provision of these police statements that the value or other lines of what a recognition may or may not have added is speculative. Can I put something quite tangible that we all saw when we went to the sheriff court, and that was many of the procurator fiscals not having the information in front of them, not being prepared, and that recognitions would greatly help them to come to court in the first instance, totally prepared with all the information that they need and therefore avoid the trial? In sheriff summary cases, there never was any recognition of witnesses. In relation to sheriff injury cases, there was some limited recognition and in high court cases, traditionally, there was significantly more recognition. In terms of perception and understanding about what was available, certainly when I started as a deputy 20 years ago, when I was prosecuting the summary courts, I had the police report and such police statements as were available, and that remains the position in the summary courts. Very quickly on that supplementary then Ben Douglas and Mary, and I think I'll let Mary in before Douglas after that. Mary, supplementary, very small? Very, very brief supplementary, and it's just on the issue that you raised, convener, about churn. I wonder if it's possible to put a figure on the amount of resource that churn wastes. Apologies if there is something in the papers that I've just not picked up. I apologise. But is it possible to put a figure on that? I'm certainly going to pass that question to Crown agent. The best figure in terms of for the overall system that I've seen is the 10 million pounds figure in the Audit Scotland report on the working of the Sheriff's Court, which I think was published till the end of 2015. I'm talking specifically about churn, because churn wastes a lot of time that is for churn. That was the figure that they attributed to. It was 10 million pounds per annum for the entirety of the system. Followed by Mary and Ben Douglas. Thank you, convener. Good morning. One of the common themes that's come up in the evidence that we've taken particularly from victims of crime has been how important support for victims and witnesses is. I was interested to see in table 7.13 of the draft budget that support for victim and witnesses is near tripling up to £15.8 million, an increase of £10.4 million. Is my understanding that some of that money will be allocated to third sector organisations that do such important work in this field? I wondered if you could comment on what impact you think that increase will make to the service. I'll let Crown agent answer that, but perhaps I'll introduce that by affirming the importance, as you alluded to, of providing appropriate support to victims. My own view is that, as prosecutors, we can't do our job unless we give confidence to victims that they will be enabled to speak up through the justice system. It is an important part of the work that prosecutors do. We can't provide all the support that victims need because our primary obligation is to prosecute crime. That's perhaps an issue that we may have to come back to when we come back in January. With that, by way of a policy introduction, perhaps the Crown agent can answer the specifics of the question. If I may preface my remarks by saying that I would like to put on record my thanks to VIA staff, who regularly deal with victims and witnesses in incredibly distressing circumstances. That is a particularly challenging role in the organisation. I echo the Lord Advocate's point that, looking at it from a system perspective, whether the individual who is involved in the system is a witness, a victim or an accused, we want that person to be able to give of their best through the entirety of the process. It's important that mechanisms are in place to help them to support that alien environment, which I think we would all accept that it is for many individuals who are involved in it. However, as the Lord Advocate said, there are issues that we need to address at a system level. Again, we welcome discussion at committee level about the role of VIA and the role of the prosecutor in providing that level of support and what that level of support should be and the extent to which other support requires to be available. I use that word importantly and consistently across the country in order to ensure that individuals who find themselves in that situation are assisted in being able to give of their best and supported through the system. Insofar as VIA itself is concerned, again, just for information in terms of the level of commitment that COPFS has in that area, the committee will be familiar with the fact that VIA is in relative terms in the history of COPFS, and it was introduced only in 2004. At that stage, it was innovative and it was one of the first in the world where we were of a prosecution service that was offering a level of support and advice and information to victims. Of the 1,600 full-time equivalent staff, about 103 or 104 of them are actually engaged in that activity on our behalf, so about one in 16 of our staff are VIA support staff. Again, insofar as the choices that are being made in relation to the use of those funds are concerned, the Ban CND staff, the ones who are dealing with the more serious criminality and supporting victims, through the more serious criminality, again, we have been in a position where we have been able to increase the head count of individuals providing those services, again making choices about how we use funds. Just to be clear, so that extra funding will partially go towards recruitment of more VIA staff in order to support that work or those decisions that need to be made? The extra funding that is identified in other budget lines does not come to COPFS. Those will be for other service providers, and that is what I am saying about the role of VIA and the role of other service providers and the line that would be appropriate constitutionally for a prosecution service to offer a level of support, but acknowledging those understandable and legitimate expectations, the needs of victims and witnesses beyond those parameters. It is encouraging that that funding will be available, but it will not directly come to COPFS, albeit I would hope that everyone in society would benefit from the investment in individuals feeling more supported as they go through the salient process. I understand that. I look forward to discussing in the new year around the policy and systemic potential for good, greater supporting witnesses and victims. My initial question was answered by the Lord Advocate. It was a supplementary to your own, and it was to specifically ask about what the conviction rates were for domestic abuse cases, so thank you very much for providing that figure. It was really a following on from Ben Macpherson's line of questioning there, and it was specifically about VIA and what you have talked about in your evidence here. Obviously, speaking to victims who have either been through the service, you can only imagine how disorienting it is trying to navigate around that system. I do not think that reports on VIA were always the most positive. It was really how you talk about the 60 recommendations there and how the implementation of that is under way. I am not expecting you to outline all the 60 recommendations here, but just what sort of areas are you looking at in terms of that and how is the implementation of that progressing? It is a phased implementation, so there will be further recommendations that will be required to be implemented during the course of the next calendar year. One of the first elements was highlighted in evidence that, as part of our move back towards a sheriffdom-focused local court delivery, there is required to be a reframing of the VIA structure to accommodate that. However, more significantly, in light of recent legislative changes, the number of referrals that VIA is dealing with has gone up quite dramatically. That is referred to in some of the additional information that we have provided to the committee at the earlier stage. You will recall that there were a series of fact sheets, and I would refer you to those in relation to the detail, rather than going over those today in relation to the additional challenges that they face. Part of that was to identify ways in which the processes could be simplified in order to accommodate the increase in demand for particular types of interaction, whilst ensuring that those who require the personal levels of support still maintain that, so it is striking that balance between ensuring that, for example, in relation to those who are deemed vulnerable and who are entitled to support that those matters are dealt with as expeditionally and effectively as possible, while ensuring that there is a focus on those who require additional support. I have more questions on that, but they are probably more appropriate for the next session. I will go into Ronan before I am being douglasen to cover an aspect that we know that we have not fully covered. The presentation of Crown Office funding in the draft budget includes a breakdown of type of activity, for example, in relation to staff costs, etc. Are you able to provide us with a breakdown of work by area of work—for example, summary cases, solemn cases or marking, is it possible for you to highlight the funding allotted to them? We will be able to do that in more detail, but just by way of headline, the last figures that we have for that in relation to actual spend, as opposed to projected spend, were 14, 15. I can give you those just now broadly if that helps or perhaps the convener would prefer if we followed that up in writing. That would be helpful if you did writing with me. We are getting to the end of our session, so can the questions and answers be brief, please. If I may, there are two final points. First of all, on your submission that of the non-staff costs, the estate is the highest. The only mention of the estate in the budget document is about incorporating the carbon management plan within it, but you go on in your submission to the committee to say that savings will be made here. What percentage and value have you put on reducing your estate? Could you give further examples? I presume that you have not just targeted outwith the central belt, because in your submission it only mentions Dundee, Aberdeen and Perth, so I wondered what else was happening elsewhere in the country. There are a number of options that are developed as each year progresses. For example, when there are lease breaks over the next four to five years, there will be opportunities to discuss and have choices about whether or not those leases should be renegotiated, whether or not a different venue should be identified, what the footprint requirement will be at those times, and we will be seeking to take those opportunities as we go along. Perth is the classic example of that, where the footprint in terms of estate and staff numbers that are in Perth at the moment does not need to be as big as it currently is. Have you set a target in how much money you should save in that term or percentage of your estate that will be reduced? I have not set a target, because what I have asked for is an analysis of what those options look like, because part of the reason why the estate choices will be informed by some of the staffing choices as well. It means that we have a richer picture of information, but I have not set a specific target for savings that are attached to estates yet. Finally, I ask that the Lord Advocate in his direct dealings with Cabinet Secretary for Finance over the budget. We are very interested in, obviously, our inquiry. I think that you have both mentioned how interested you have been in it. It has received a widespread publicity in terms of the evidence that we have received. What direct onus was placed on the evidence that we have received at the inquiry in your discussions, either from you or the Cabinet Secretary for Finance when you were discussing reducing the real-terms budget for COPFS? I am sorry for making a mistake with the buttons here. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to go into the detail of discussions that I have with the Cabinet Secretary. I can say that he is well aware that the inquiry is on-going. Can you say that the evidence, which I alluded to in my opening questions, highlighting concerns over resources, was fully explored before the Cabinet Secretary for Finance in direct dealings with herself took the decision to reduce the budget to the Crown Office Procurate or fiscal service in real terms? As I said, I do not think that it would be right for me to get into the discussions that I have with the Cabinet Secretary. Just a tiny wee point. It appeared to be suggested that the fines come back to benefit the justice system. I cannot quite recall where they go. Am I correct in saying that they go to the Treasury? The fines go to Treasury, but other items go to other places, but the fines go to Treasury. I realise that POCA, for example, is covered by a different jurisdiction where a capped amount is retained in Scotland. Whether fines are paid or not is quite a material to the funding that there is for the criminal justice system in Scotland. That is all that I wanted. I realise that, as soon as I said that, having looked at that in some detail and looked at the amount of outstanding figures and fines, which is not insubstantial, there is a churn continuing as the non-payment and there is certainly a cost to that. There are only two other questions, both related to the fact that we have not covered and this will be the last. The committee has been told that the preparation of court cases is not a job that can be done in normal office hours with prosecutors regularly taking homework to avoid being ill-prepared. Is that the situation that you are aware of? I wonder if you could, at the same time, address staff organisations having highlighted concerns about the impact of work pressures on staff morale and sickness levels and perhaps indicating what has been done about that. Clearly, there is a huge cost implication and an emotional implication in all of those as well. Perhaps, again, I could make a couple of observations on the Crown agent answer in detail, conscious as I am, of the pressure of time. The first point to reiterate is the points that have already been made by a number of people, the quality of the staff in the Crown office and the trust that I have in the judgment and professionalism of all the staff who prosecute on my behalf. I recognise that the work of a prosecutor is a challenging job. In terms of morale, I was very heartened to see the most recent survey on the Crown office in which it is fair to say that all the numbers are moving in the right direction. There is still work to be done, but the numbers are going in the right direction. To pick out a few examples, 56 per cent of staff members reported that they had an acceptable workload. What is important about that figure is that it is a 15 per cent improvement on the last survey, and it is only 2 per cent below the civil service average. While one would like to see that move up, it is a figure that is going firmly in the right direction. Can I ask when the last survey was? What kind of timeframe are we talking about? I think that we are talking about a one-year. 67 per cent reported that they have a good work-life balance, and that is up 11 per cent from last year, and it is on the civil service average. On questions about working for COPFS, 60 per cent reported that they wanted to stay working for COPFS for at least the next three years. That is up 6 per cent, and it is 17 per cent above the civil service average and 9 per cent above the civil service high performers. Those figures, to me, are encouraging. However, every person in the fiscal service has a story to tell. While percentages may be encouraging, do you accept that there is still an issue to be addressed? Of course. One of the jobs that I have as the new head of the service is to reinforce to staff the value that I place on the work that they do, the trust that I have in them, the importance of the professionalism and the dedication that they show. I do not know whether the crowning should be like that. Unless you want to add anything, Mr Harvey? There was quite a lot of detail there, so it is hard to add additional detail, but so far as I can, the other thing to bear in mind is that part of the way of addressing this is at a system level. For example, in October of that same month, if you look across the sheriff courts in the country on any given day, in terms of appointments places that the prosecutor had to be, that varied between 85 and 120 on any given day across October. One of the things that we are working alongside the court service is trying to stop the peaks in demand that create an impact and a pressure on the entirety of the system, including on prosecutors. The other way in which we are seeking to mitigate that, referring to my earlier answer, is to ensure that those who most regularly appear in the courts go back to the figures in relation to deputies and senior deputies, 285 in 2009, 354 in 2016. In terms of numbers, that is an extra 68, 69 in contrast to 2009. I am trying to make those choices in order to allow as much flexibility as possible within the constraints that are applied. You are always mindful of the work-life balance? Absolutely. It was encouraging to see those results in the survey, but I am all too conscious that that is just a step in a journey and that there is a considerable way to go. In the next session, we might have an opportunity to discuss, in some more detail, the fair futures work that we are doing, particularly in and around wellbeing. The most recent staff absence figures have shown a slight drop, which is encouraging, but I take nothing from that. It is still far too high. Thank you very much. That has been a comprehensive session. We look forward to seeing you again in January. I suspend to allow for a change of witnesses. Our next item is item 3, Evidence Session for the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service Inquiry. This is our seventh week of evidence-taking on the COPFS inquiry. I welcome today's witnesses to the committee's evidence session, Michelle McLeod, HM Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland, and Dawn Lewington, Assistant Inspector, HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 4, which is private briefing from Spice, and to the written submissions from the Chief Inspector, which is very much appreciated. With that, I invite questions from members. How long is your term of office? My term of office is an appointment of three years with an option for that to be extended. I was fortunate enough to have that option extended, so I have a further period of about two and a half years until the conclusion of my term. I would really like to tease out a bit more about some of the current work that you are involved in and what you do, and how that reports back and how that information gets out to the public. I think that one of my main concerns from seeing all the evidence that we have had so far is that very few people are aware of the work that you do, so I was really just wondering what you are doing and how you intend to tackle that problem. From looking at the submissions and listening to the evidence, I have to accept that there seems to be an issue with the awareness of the inspectorate and or profile. If I could just advise, we have a remit to look at any part of the operation of Sea of Beavess and the purpose of being to, obviously, enhance the service for the public of Scotland and to promote excellence in the service. I act entirely independently in publishing and preparing the reports, but the Lord Advocate can require the inspector to undertake a review or inspection of a particular subject. I can also choose to undertake a review of a particular subject. We do that on the basis of looking at areas where we perceive the most risk in terms of reputational damage, in terms of resourcing, as the committee has been discussing this morning, and in terms of the effect of prosecution of crime. There are a number of factors that we would take into account when looking to analyse risk, current trends, performance data, and the views of stakeholders in the justice board and in the criminal justice system generally. We publish all our reports. We have a dedicated website that we publish them, and they get published through the Scottish Government comms with a press release. We do get some interest in the reports. I am aware that some can be quite technical and legalistic, which may limit some of the interest that we sometimes get. I would say that, in terms of, for example, our last report into FAIs, we did interview 21 persons from 21 different organisations. In addition to COPFS staff, deaf defence solicitors and people from the Shrevel bench. In certain fields, people are more familiar with our work than others. There are some surprising submissions, because we have done a lot of work with individual defence, speaking to solicitors in different areas and so on. The Barso season might not have a wide appreciation of what we do, but we try to engage with as many people in the criminal justice system as possible. However, taking account of the submissions that are made, we have looked at how we can raise our profile. We have now engaged with social media, and we will put out our reports in future on social media. I will look actively at how I can raise the profile of the inspectorate in relation to using that mechanism. In terms of our current programme, we are currently working on our follow-up report to the management of time limits. When I took up my post, I introduced a rolling programme of follow-up reports, which is identified as good practice for inspectors. We have continued that programme. We will then look at our complaints handling and feedback report, embark on a follow-up report of that early next year. As part of that, we will look at the right of review for victims that were introduced in July 2015. We feel that it fits quite well with the complaints feedback and handling report to look at that right and ensure that it has been properly implemented and that victims are getting the right legislation provided. We are going to incorporate that as a new part of the review. However, our main next substantive report, and we are scoping that at the present, is that we have identified the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences as a high-risk area. That is the next report that we are embark on. I was just wondering, then, as a follow-up to that. If you undertake investigations, you have recommendations to make to COPFS. How do you work together with them to ensure that those recommendations are implemented? What sort of obligations are COPFS under to implement whatever recommendations that you propose? There is no statutory obligation, but, in my experience, the purpose of the inspectorate has a lot in common with the purpose of COPFS and that it wants to improve and drive up standards. In my time as chief inspector, I have completed four substantive reports. In every single one of them, all the recommendations have been accepted by COPFS and the Lord Advocate. As I said, we do follow-up reports. The Crown Office will tend to pull an action plan together following the publication of a report and a senior civil service will have the lead. During the reports, I share my emerging findings. I discuss issues that we come across in the course of inspection, and I feel that that helps people to understand our final conclusions. In terms of our recommendations, I have had no difficulty in accepting them and accepting the purpose and what we are trying to achieve with the recommendations. It is probably not surprising, given that we are both wanting to improve the service. If we identify a gap or perceive a perceived risk, it would be quite dangerous of a Lord Advocate or a Crown Agent to simply fly in the face of that, unless there was another approach that the Lord Advocate wanted to employ to remedy that message. When you talked in your previous answer about some of the Lord Advocate can ask you to investigate specific areas, I would be interested to hear some examples of that or areas where the Lord Advocate has called you in specifically to look at a specific issue. Review of sexual fences will be my fifth substantive report. Of those, the former Lord Advocate asked me to look at, first of all, that it is a priority organ retention. That followed a public concern regarding the discovery of organs that have been retained without the nearest relatives being notified. I think that there were statements made to parliaments about that. He was very anxious that I took an early look at that when I took a post. The first report was on organ retention. It was not just about addressing the system that had been in place to ensure that it was robust and that it could avoid that happening again. However, as part of that inspection, it became apparent that, due to medical advances, there was no need in all but exceptional cases to retain organs. Therefore, highlighting that fact meant that it is now very rare and exceptional for a whole organ to be retained. We did two audits to provide more reassurance for the Lord Advocate and all those audits. We only found one other case where there had been temporary retention and all the procedures had been undertaken and families had been notified. That was the first report. The second one, again, was at the request of the Lord Advocate. Although I have to say that the Lord Advocate identified something that was at the risk, it generally does chime with generally people in COPFS and myself. The second one was management of time limits. It was the management of time limits report, which is one of the drivers for us now turning to look at the sexual crimes review. I was conscious that there were very process and technical reports. I decided that I would like to do a customer focus report. There had not been an inspection into complaints handling and feedback customer service, so I undertook that. Following that, I undertook the fatal accident report again. In conjunction with the discussion with the former Lord Advocate, we had identified that there was no real evidence base to understand what was causing delays in the FEIs. There was a lot of anecdotal assumptions but no evidence base, so we did a case review to give some reassurance about that on an evidential basis. I, in light of the time limits and the increasing business now in the high court of which we believe 70 per cent is now sexual crimes, identified that the next real area that we want to have a look at is sexual fences. I have instigated that and scoping that review as present. We are hearing a couple of instances of the fiscal service asking you to look at something. I just wonder if you might care to comment, does that carry with it the risk that, if that happens too often, that overwhelms your independent ability to decide your work programme? While of course I properly recognise the value of the fiscal being able to ask you that. The first point is that the actual findings and recommendations are so attributable to base, so I am independent in relation to the outcome of any report, even if it is the Lord Advocate that requested us to look at it. It is not uncommon in inspectors for ministers to be able to ask inspectors to look at significant areas of risk. The Attorney General, England Wales, can ask the inspector of the Crown and Prosecution Service to look at the particular areas, as the cabinet secretary with HMICS Scotland can ask them to look at aspects of policing or the SPA work. It is not uncommon, and perhaps given that the minister is accountable to Parliament, it is understandable that they have got some independent body that they can seek reassurance or seek an independent review of a particular aspect of the operation of the CFP vests that is causing some concern, whether that is public or whether it is a reason for some particular case. However, I agree that the balance needs to be correct, it needs to have an opportunity. We are a very small inspectorate, so we have not got the capacity to do a great deal of reports, so we want to pick carefully the subjects that we decide to inspect and ensure that we achieve the greatest value for the service and for Scotland. I go back to my point that, if an area is causing concern for the Lord Advocate, key stakeholders or the justice board, it is usually something that we find that our views coincide with. In all the areas that we were asked to do, I was very happy to consider those areas, as I felt. They were significant areas where we needed to have a proper review and a proper examination of the subject. Thank you. Can I first begin by following on some points that Mary Evans made? I have to say that I am slightly worried that you are speaking about getting on social media to raise awareness. Your office has been established for 13 years. It was established in December 2003 and it was established to introduce a measure of accountability that is essential for public confidence. You go through the evidence that we have received on the committee. I will pick out a few. Scottish Borders Rate Crisis Centre, I have no awareness of the IPS. Scottish Police Federation is not aware of the IPS and cannot comment on its resources or effectiveness. One individual witness to the committee, I have never heard of the inspectorate of prosecution. Even more worryingly for me, the Sheriff's Association, we do not receive information about the IPS or its practices. I am sorry, but I do not believe that a Twitter handle is going to overcome those problems over a decade of being in existence and not being known by the legal profession in which it operates. I have been opposed for three and a half years. No, I am speaking about the role of IPS. It is not new individually. I fully accept that. I was just making a point that we have listened to the feedback and that we will explore different ways to raise the profile. We circulate reports to everybody that contributes and to anybody that we think has an interest in the criminal justice arena. Does the Sheriff's Association have an interest in that? If they have not on our distribution list, that is a thought that we will look at. I can say that we speak to, in the last two reports, we had contributions from sheriffs across Scotland in relation to the FEIs report and the management time bars report. We speak to sheriffs and defence agents. As you would expect, we speak to any stakeholder that has an interest. As I have advised, we are about to embark on looking at the sexual offences review. Many of the stakeholders that have already given evidence to this committee will definitely be engaging with them and seeking feedback in relation to the review that we are about to take. Although some have said that they do not have much awareness of us, we have had contact with any event that I tend to speak to women's aides and various other persons there. In the Police Scotland, we have seen just about every one of our inspections in some capacity. We saw a lot of people in relation to police work in the FEIs and we have already started speaking to key stakeholders in the police about whether we are scoping or sexual offences. We see a lot of people. It is disappointing that there seems to be a lack of awareness. We are taking seriously. We will look and see if we have the right distribution list and where we might be missing a trick. It is not just about social media, but we will ensure that our reports get to the right people that can help us to raise our awareness. You have two full-time inspectors. Why do you feel that they have to be seconded from the COPFS? They do not necessarily have to be seconded from the COPFS. During the inspection for the complaints handling of feedback, I recruited two associates inspectors. One had a police background and one had a health sector background. Clearly, in terms of that inspection, there was less focus on legal issues and there was less of a requirement to have a prosecutorial background. In fact, it was very much about customer focus. As I say, they came from a different organisation background and that provided a very helpful perspective. However, having succondies from the prosecution service also brings direct benefits. Obviously, they have the legal knowledge of the prosecution service. We are looking at management of time limits, which was technical and legalistic. There were a lot of legal points raised in that. It was helpful to have colleagues in the team that had a prosecution background. The IT systems of COPFS have three different IT systems. In addition to the management information system, having succonded deputes with that knowledge of how to use the systems is very important. It allows us to interrogate the system, to minimise the disruption to COPFS, because we can go in and see how many cases are of particular type. We can access the files, we can download papers with the systems becoming so much more electronic. We do not have to go in and trouble fiscal officers to get hard copy papers in most cases, although sometimes that is necessary. Having that level of expertise and what the inspectorate allows us to succond to people in is to acquire different skill sets that they do not experience during day-to-day prosecution work and to take that back and hopefully enhance their own development in COPFS but also help to enhance their work in COPFS when they go back. Depending on the subject matter, it is not necessary that it needs to be person succonded, but it needs a period of continuity for people to come in, so it is easier. You might understand my concern that you started off by saying that you do not have to hub that background or that you do not have to be succonded from COPFS, yet your whole answer then said how good it was that they are succonded from COPFS. I am now sat here wondering whether, when their period is finished, are they just going to be replaced by other people from COPFS? You have spoken about the benefits. What are the risks? They are investigating and scrutinising a body that they will return to work in, and surely that can be seen as a risk. As I have pointed out, the findings and recommendations are solely a tribute to myself and I am independent of any person. You are an extremely small team. You are yourself on a four days a week, you have an assistant, and then you have three investigators, one part time, so that only two full-time investigators are from the COPFS. While your name may be printed at the bottom of the report, it would not take a genius to work out where the findings have come from in terms of the investigations in a team that size. Obviously, in a team that size, we all have to play a critical part. At the end of the day, when I make recommendations on the findings, if there is any issue to be taken with them, it is with myself that I would have the discussion with COPFS or the Lord Advocate. If there is a possibility to recruit associate inspectors on a temporary basis, as I have already indicated, if the subject matter lends itself to it. For example, in some more specialist areas such as economic crime, I would have to recruit more specialist financial specialists to help us with an inspection like that, or if it was IT, maybe some kind of IT expertise. Since I have taken up the post, I have to try to look at different models of staffing the inspectorate, which is why I had recruited the two associate inspection. It takes a bit of time for people to come in and get up to speed on how to do the inspection and how to do it. If I had kept turning over staff, it leads to some inefficiencies. I am trying to get the balance right that suits a small inspectorate. We have come up across the model of the current two inspectors for a two-year period. Once that finishes, depending on what our future programme is, it is possible that I may look for other avenues, such as through the Scottish Government or other avenues that we would want to recruit to inspectors. I am aware that HMICS has a more varied background, but it has a bigger team. It has been the pattern of how it has happened, but it is not fixed and stoned. As I said, I have already tried different models and we will explore other possible models. To continue the discussion that you had with Mary Evans and Stuart Stevenson about the Lord Advocate's involvement, not so much in terms of directing inquiries, because I think that you have covered that, but he is presented with all reports in draft form. Is that not correct? No, the annual report is presented in a draft form to Lord Advocate. Right, sorry. He gets your annual report and he sits down and reads your draft report, and he does not like something in there. He says to you, would you mind taking that out? Are you in a difficult position to change something in your draft annual report that then gets laid before Parliament? That office is also your employer. Firstly, that has never happened in the three annual reports that I have done. No, I think that it is useful to tease that out. No, the annual report is a factual summary of the work that has been done, and it is not particularly controversial. Maybe that is why, though. Potentially? Well, it is more factual. In terms of the substantive reports that we do, at the conclusion of that report, and as I said, we try to share emerging findings along with the key players when we are doing the reports. The report is given to Crown Office for any comments on factual accuracy, and only factual accuracy, so that I will give them a period of time to read through the report and they will advise me if they think that there are any issues of factual accuracy. And then, if there are, I would obviously— Can you understand whether there would be a potential perception, or a misconception, that there is not enough of a division between your office and the Lord Advocate's office? He appoints you, he agrees to reappoint you, he agrees your terms, and finally, you present a draft report to him for him to then present to ministers, to members of Parliament, and he is allowed to comment upon that, and it may never have happened before. But the fact that you said that it was a fairly generic factually-based document would suggest that it could go into greater detail, greater depth, if maybe there was a further division between your office and the Lord Advocate's office. I think that the more substantive reports where we have done an inspection are the ones that obviously have the criticisms of COPs and the ones where we have identified risks and the ones that we have identified where there is a need for a service improvement. So the annual report that comes to MSPs to ministers contains no criticisms of the Crown Office and Procurator fiscal service? It contains a summary and a link to the reports, which have a more heartening purpose in the sense that the reports will hopefully make a difference. The annual report is a summary of the reports that we have done. It is to inform the public and MSPs of the reports, but it contains links to the reports and the work that we have done in the year, which I think is the important part of the report. It also allows me an opportunity to explain what direction the inspectorate is going in, and it provides factual information about the role of the inspectorate. Again, I can only speak from my experience, and in terms of any suggestion of influencing or making any changes to any of my recommendations, I find that it has never happened. I would say that my questions are not to the current office holders or anything, but it is just saying, and it is not just me asking this question, it was put in one of the submissions to this inquiry from the Law Society of Scotland, raised a similar concern. I can ask a final question on one of the examples that you gave on page 5 paragraphs 18 and 19 of your submission. I have got to say that it was quite disappointing, and I was wondering first of all how long this process took, but you are looking at an issue that politicians have raised, people within communities have raised about mental health in prisoners, and you thought that this would be a good idea. Let's look into this with HMICS, and then at the end of all that, you decided that there were so many difficulties in identifying a cohort of prisoners, and I find that disappointing that that has been pushed aside now, or there are certainly significant delays, that is what you are saying. I just wonder how long that process took, and really why should those difficulties be faced by you as someone and an office trying to improve the court system, the justice system? It was quite troubling to read that. The scoping period that we worked with HMICS, I think, was probably about two to three months. We met with substantial numbers of organisations, and we looked at this because we were aware that this was a priority for many people in the Parliament, and it was raised by the justice board with ourselves and HMICS to see if we could undertake some kind of inspection, and we in particular, I was keen to actually be able to proceed and undertake an inspection in this area for obvious reasons and a number of reasons. However, we obviously wanted to do it to the police because it is a criminal justice issue. It is not just about the prosecution service and what alternatives it can offer. It was about what happens before you even come into the system and what options are available to the police. We discovered that there is myriad of different pilots, innovations, and in terms of the ffiscals, we did a short but relatively comprehensive study into diversion schemes that were available, and we looked at the possible diversion. What we found in terms of that—I'm slightly going off subject here—was that there was not a level playing field and there was a need for a more consistent approach to having diversion schemes available throughout Scotland rather than coherent. However, the real difficulty came because, in Scotland, the criminal justice system tends to be crime-centric. The information provided in police reports is about the type of crime. We can identify knife crime and domestic abuse crime, but there is less information about the offender. It is not offender-centric. When we started—I can provide the committee—what we did at the end of the process was that we produced a strategic paper to help inform the justice board of the gaps and issues that we had identified. We, quite happily, will go back and look at that if those gaps can be rectified so that we can identify a cohort so that we can actually see what works, what does not work, where the advantages are. I would like to know that you say at the end of paragraph 19 that you will revisit this as part of the IPS future work programme, which would suggest that you have overcome some of the problems. Were the problems because you tried to do the work alongside HMICS, or why was it that you were not able to do that joint investigation that you started off wanting to do? Will your ultimate investigation be poorer for the fact that you could not go away in your original process that you wanted to do? The gaps were not within our gift. The work that we identified has now been progressed by Police Scotland. We are now working with other persons in Scottish Government and the Justice Board to take forward some of the areas that we identified in our strategic plan. The information is simply not recorded in a systematic fashion about issues that people who have mental health issues and the databases that exist in Police Scotland were not sophisticated enough to allow us to identify persons. It is an issue that I know that the Justice Board has been talking about, and it is trying to look at more offender-centric methods of recording crime. That was what we flagged up. We were very disappointed that we could not. We tried—I have a paper that I can let you see all the different options that we tried to find something that would give us a robust sample. We have promised and said that this is something that, in all the criminal justice board, I am keen for us to go back and do this without HMSCS, but it makes more sense to do it. Once those problems have been overcome, we will look at it. I can provide the committee with some background information on the different areas that we looked at. We were just not able to get enough information data that would allow us to do something that would add value. At the end of the day, we want to make findings that are realisable and evidence-based. That was my problem. There was not enough to allow us to have it evidence-based. Liam, do you have a supplementary that you indicated before, Stuart? Or was it a substantial— It was a supplementary on this. I mean, I have another question as well on which I am happy to come back to it. I bring you on this supplementary, Stuart. I just wanted briefly to nail down the issue of where you draw your staff from. I have just drawn some personal experience in a phrase that was written in my annual appraisal in 1971, which said that Mr Stevenson is excellent at solving problems, especially when he creates them. I just wonder if that is exactly capturing why it is right that we have people from the fiscal service as part of the inspectorate, because they will best understand where the bodies lie. There is certainly an element of truth in that. You need to know the questions sometimes to ask. If you do not know something, it obviously makes it difficult to have a really in-depth examination. The answer is a little more brief—that would be good—about curtailing anything. I am happy with that, Liam. I have been commenting on Stuart Stevenson's past employment appraisals, but I am sure that there is, Stuart. Under the 2007 act, the inspector is appointed by the Lord Advocate. We have already touched on the extent to which the Lord Advocate can invite the inspector to look at particular issues. We have discussed the extent to which there is a close relationship with COPFS and where you derive your staffing from, and there is also a lack of awareness. Does that not simply reinforce the point that was made by the Law Society of Scotland that what we need is more individuals involved in the inspectorate who are not PFs or employees of COPFS? There are clearly issues in COPFS at the moment, and we will come on to the substantive issues in a moment. However, at the moment, whether it is those representing sheriffs, whether it is the Law Society of Scotland, whether it is victims groups, none are seeing the inspectorate as the route through which addressing those issues is best secured. I should probably have mentioned that the position of chief inspector openly is advertised nationally and is open to anybody who has the relevant qualifications and skills. You do not have to be a prosecutor to apply to be the chief inspector, and it is an open, transparent process involving assessment centre and interview panel. Following all that process, the recommendation is then made to the Lord Advocate. In that process now, given what we have heard about the issues in relation to transparency and some of the concerns around independence, I take the point about those who will know whether bodies are buried or those with a direct experience. We have heard a lot of evidence over recent weeks about others who have an understanding of how COPFS work and have clear views about how it can be made to work better, but would not necessarily suffer from the same perception or misconception that they have a dog in the race, that they owe some allegiance or whatever to COPFS, that would help in addressing that point about independence, but it may also raise the awareness of what the inspectorate does amongst the wider stakeholders that we have been hearing from on a weekly basis in relation to the inquiry that we are doing. As I said, it is open to anybody to apply and to meet the relevant qualifications. I went through a process and was appointed, but I am sure that there were other people in that process that did not come from a prosecutorial background. That is a matter that is undertaken by the Scottish Government and, as I said, a recommendation is made. Obviously, I have alluded to some of the benefits of being a prosecutor because you know the right questions to ask, you know the issues that are causing difficulty, and you have an understanding of, when somebody says that the high court business is 70 per cent, what it feels like in real terms and how it can be managed. I take the point about the awareness of the inspectorate. Again, I would say that we are quite a small compact inspectorate and we do not produce as many reports as some of the other inspectors because of that, but we do engage with stakeholders in relation to the subject matter. The sexual offences is probably one of the biggest reviews that we are going to do for some time and there is obviously a number of people who have contributed to the inquiry that we will be engaging with. We are very aware of some of the issues that have been raised in the inquiry from our other reports, so we have the benefit of taking, for example, the issues that arose through the complaints handling about a lack of customer focus, which has been mentioned in terms of the submissions. The victim representation and disclosure of sensitive personal records will be a feature of an aspect that we will look at. Again, we will liez with various stakeholders that gave evidence to the committee on that. Maybe because this is a wider-ranging subject and it has a lot of different facets to it that we are going to be looking at, that will hopefully go somewhere to heighten our awareness. I think that it is about having the experience sometimes and the knowledge that can actually get under the surface of some of those, but I am not saying it can be done by it. It is an experience and the knowledge of how it works. I understand that there is a value to that, but it does not necessarily give confidence that there is a challenge function there about how things can be made to work better or an entirely different approach adopted to deliver the objectives. That is the concern that, in a sense, you understand how the mechanics ought to operate because of your intimate experience of it, but you do not necessarily have an investment in making it work differently and better. There is no reason why, as well as Ms Lewington can also, if you want, to prefer your view as the assistant inspector. If I could briefly go back to the organ retention report. At the time that we were looking at that issue—and, obviously, there was a significant public concern about it—the overwhelming discussions with people were to have almost an overly bureaucratic system put in place, because people were nervous about it and felt that that was the best way. By the fact that we went out and we had an objective overview of what had happened, and we spoke to pathologists and realised that there was no need to take organs, but that had not been necessarily highlighted within the physical service and with the appropriate bodies. We turned that all in its head, and the system that was advocated in the report was that, because it is now exceptional, we will streamline that system, and we will have a regulatory reconciliation between the service providers and the COPFS that addresses that particular problem. We will not throw paper in bureaucracy, but we will look at the simplest way possible to do it. I think that it did—a prosecution background did not really apply in coming up with that decision and I think that it was best way forward in terms of the report, and the report was accepted in its entirety, despite it being not what was anticipated or envisaged in the first instance. If another example perhaps is in it—sorry, yes, because I am conscious of time—is the short answer to what Liam McNeill is saying, that you will look at widening the membership beyond the prosecution sector, and it certainly seems to us that some of the best evidence that we have had is from the defence list, so I think that that is encouraging. I am very conscious that you have not said anything yet in this language. Would you like to add something? I am relatively new to the inspectorate. It has only been imposed for about six months, and that is against the background of being a fiscal or a deputy for some 22 years, but I can say just from my own personal experience, if it assists the committee at all, that you do feel quite a difference when you do move into that different role. It does give you that step back and that objectivity. It naturally comes, I have to say, although the inspectorate would have maybe some of the same goals as CLPFS, we all want to improve that service for the public and obviously for staff as well, some of those issues that have risen in relation to staff issues. There are different functions there, and there is a separation there, and that separation is certainly clear to me in my experience so far. The points that I looked to raise, convener, were covered in the answer to Douglas Ross around paragraphs 18 and 19, and I would also be interested to see the background documentation around that, so I look forward to reading that. Rona Cymru. I would like to know if any concerns have been raised with you, Chief Inspector, regarding the way domestic abuse cases are handled by Crown Office and Brokerator Fiscal Service. Do you agree that there is a culture of zero tolerance and that there is some pressure to prosecute in those cases, perhaps with a lack of evidence? Domestic abuse is an area that we have considered as a possible area for inspection, however we are aware that currently it has been monitored by a number of different parties, and the Auditor General spoke about Audit Scotland's role in looking at the performance in terms of value for money in cases proceeding through court. Policy terms, I did not hear all of the Lord Advocate's evidence this morning, but I am aware that the Lord Advocate has a robust policy in relation to domestic abuse, and if there is sufficient evidence, there is a presumption of proceedings. It is not for me to stray into policy areas. All I would say in that regard is that prosecution policy is a legitimate tool to try to change behaviours, and we have seen that work in the past with knife crime, drink driving and hate crime. Given that the recent statistics have given evidence to the committee by ACC Higgins, 80 per cent of the cases that they report to the fiscal result and a conviction would suggest that the decision making is pretty spot on in terms of that high percentage. Given the number of people monitoring this area, we felt that there was probably less value that we could add at this stage to look at domestic abuse than perhaps looking at the investigation prosecution of sexual offences where there are a number more issues that we would like to explore. It is something that we have had on our radar. We are conscious of all the discussion, and we have been listening to the submissions to the committee. Finally, I do not know whether the Lord Advocate mentioned it today, but there is a prosecution code that prosecutors work to, and nobody should be taking cases. There should be no case to take without sufficient evidence. I think that that was born out of some of the evidence that the Lord Advocate gave. The Lord Advocate has indicated that he is keen to place trust and faith in prosecutors. Are you happy with the independent review panels on all that? The independent review panels are something that is relatively new to COPFS. As part of having our discussions with Crown Office, we looked to see where they are adding value and continuous improvement, and we were quite impressed by the concept of the review panel in terms of improving the openness and transparency of decision making. I personally have not sat in that review panel, and I have not seen the paper work of it, but it is something that we will probably look at seeing the benefit of when we go to look at our sexual offences review and maybe have more of an opportunity to see how it actually works in practice. Mary. Thank you, convener. My question follows on quite nicely from my colleagues' question. Your paper points out the review that you have recently embarked on in the investigation and prosecution of sexual crimes. There is more and more use of specialist areas within the Crown Office service. I have two small questions to ask you. One is, do you intend to look at any of the other specialisms? Do you have any concerns that the increasing use of specialist courts and specialist services dilutes from the core function of the Crown Office? There have been specials in sexual offences since the setting up of the national sexual crimes unit in 2009. It was one of the first areas to attract specialist criteria and all the deputes that are required to be involved in sexual offences that require just registration, special training and so on. As part of our review, the committee will be aware that the Crown Office has recently been restructured yet again. We are looking at the High Court sexual offences, so we are going to incorporate as part of that review a look at how the functional hubs are working under the new structure. We will look at the governance arrangements that have come in with the new structure and the new teams that are going to take forward dealing with those offences. We will look a bit wider at the specialist role and how they are adding value to the cases at each stage of the proceedings. I think that I caught the end of the evidence from the Crown Agent and the Lord Advocate. Clearly, in certain particular cases, having a specialist who understands the dynamics of the different aspects of domestic abuse and sexual offending is extremely important. The NSU is an area that we will have a look at as part of the review to see again how it fits into the wider scheme of looking at the specialisms. On the general physical service, I have no input into the budget allocation or the prioritisation by COPs. All I can do is, when I look at a particular area, identify where I see a training need or identify where there is a staffing need or identify where there is some other measure that needs to be put in place. For example, in the FEIs, we came across frustration on behalf of many new relatives that there was no continuity of a single person taking them through from that beginning of the end process. We made that recommendation, which has been accepted, but we acknowledge that that has resourcing implications for COPs. We make comments on individual areas about resourcing. I have no input into the prioritisation of overall budgetary control. That is more for Audit Scotland to look at the financial sustainability. What is the timescale for the review that you have just recently started? As I said, we are presently just about to conclude the scoping of that, which will allow us to plan the timescales. I think that we probably need—we were at the moment looking at what sample size we would want to do a case review. Once we have decided that, that will inform how long it will take, but I can certainly provide information on timescales to the committee once we have come to that conclusion. If you could offer a view as to why senior managers have become invisible when referring to your annual report. The annual report highlighted some concerns that have come out of the consultation exercise that occurred in the shaping of the future programme that was initiated by COPs. I think that I highlighted some of the concerns that were flagged up by staff in COPs, one of them being lack of visibility by managers, and the other one was about resilience. Because of the ring-fencing of sheriff and jury business and summary, it meant that there was less flexibility and resilience when there was particular staff shortages for a particular reason. Those were consequences of the move to the federation structure, which was started in 2012. I think that they were acknowledged at the end of that consultation exercise by senior management co-office as resulting from really unattended consequences of the federation process. They are looking in the new model—the crime office has moved to a functional model to deal with core work. As part of that, they have reintroduced local court, which now combines sheriff and jury business and summary business. It is still very early days, and it is still to bed. We keep a watching brief in all those areas of COPFS, but hopefully that will allow for more resilience in the sheriff courts. In terms of the visibility of fiscals, because they are aligned with the local sheriffdoms, the six sheriffdoms, there is a procreative fiscal-free sheriffdom. It has kind of reinforced reinstituted the link between courts, police and local fiscal that perhaps for the summary level had been spread too thin because the federation structure was really big, large structures east and northwest, etc. I think that they have taken on board the criticism and the comments and the feedback. I hope that the new structure is seen as a way of addressing that. I heard the current agent allude to fair futures and some of the other issues that came out of that consultation, such as wellbeing issues that really impact on staff, quality of life, etc. They are going to be taken forward under the fair futures programme. That is something again that we are very keen to keep an eye on. I have had discussions with the director of HR as to what workstreams are involved in that. We will look at, in due course, how that was developed and what outcomes were identified and how they were implemented. There may be scope for us to do something in due course. We are definitely watching how that progresses in due course. That is a question that the Auditor General has asked. Given all that has come out of the inquiry, there has been a lot. Has it changed how you would approach your inspections? Has it been very much on a thematic approach or not on your turn or certainly before, as opposed to a holistic approach? Is there anything that you would change on how you have approached the other inspections? One of the issues that I took up post is that, as I say in my annual reports, it has never stopped changing. The structures have changed from 2012 and have moved on. It has been hard to make a recommendation with things that I keep moving forward, but I alluded to it that, in terms of sexual offences, now that we have the functional teams in place, that will give us an opportunity to look at more about the structure around that as well as the thematic of sexual offences. We will hopefully look at the new structure regime that has been put in place, as well as the thematic subject matter of sexual offences. Can I ask you what you think is the biggest challenges for the crime and procurator fiscal service? Given one of the factors that we have decided to look at sexual offences was because we identified that, with increasing volume of serious crime, now 70 per cent sexual global crime transcending national boundaries all becoming much more complex in terms of the management of high court cases, we said in the management of time limits report that there was a risk of those cases being lost in times of budgetary constraint. That pre-petition work has continued to increase and now it was 50 per cent when we were looking at it in the management of time limits as the average of the high court is now 70 per cent. We have picked this area because we think that this is a significant risk area. We think that it is high profile and we hope that we can identify areas where we can make improvements. So, we are analysing and looking behind that, which I think that sounds like an excellent way forward. Hopefully, when you complete that work, everyone will know. I hope so. I hope that the inspectorial prosecution is at complete sir questioning. Just before we can ask Ms Lungton, will you be returning to the service once you have completed your sub-comment? It is just a two-year sub-comment, so yes, that is my plan. Okay. Thank you both very much for appearing before us today. Can we just move on? We could suspend briefly just to let the witnesses go, but I do not want you to move anywhere because we will move swiftly on. Agenda item 4, Abordinate legislation and consideration of negative SSI, line court and office fees variation devolved functions order 2016 SSI, 2016, sub-league 390. I refer members to paper 5. Do members have any comments? John Finnie? Thank you, convener. I think that many people find it strange that we are still talking about those sort of things in an individual. I cannot just have a coat of arms if they want, but what I wanted to comment on was paragraph 9 of the paper that used a term, which I do not know that I understand and I do not know that it is helpful, and that is the term a joint informal consultation took place. I think that we want formality if we are dealing with legislation that has expenditure implications. I will ask the clerk to give advice on this, because Peter has seen it before. I have little to add to what the member has said. I have seen that wording used before in those types of consultations on instruments. Do you want to make a recommendation that it should not be used or that there is another one? It just seems entirely out of kilter with a subsequent paragraph that lists a group of people who have been consulted and a number of representatives. I do not know how informal it is that someone is picking up a phone and presumably there is a list somewhere. Let's just keep things formal of its legislation. That's all. All right. You knew it. Stuart Searles. It was just on that point, just for information. I note that the income the Lord Lion court receives from its efforts amount to £60,000 a year. In other words, we're not talking a very large amount of money, and I do happen to know that the application for a coat of arms is of the order of £3,000, so we're probably talking about a very small number of people. I don't express the view that's certainty. Maybe that's why I'm informal. For the avoidance of doubt, my comment about that is about the fact that we have a piece of legislation here in that term being used. It's not what the actual bit of legislation is. I think that we should have formality about legislation in this. Okay. That's noted, but are you content not to make any recommendations? All agreed. Thank you for that. Agenda item 5, justice sub-committee on policing. This is to consider a report back from the last meeting of the justice sub-committee on policing on 15 December when it discussed a draft letter to the Cabinet Secretary on financial planning for 2017-18 in relation to the police budget. I will invite Mary Fee, the sub-committee convener, to report back. Before I do, can I advise members that, following the verbal report, there will be an opportunity for brief comments or questions if there are any specific areas of what members wish the justice committee to consider in more detail. That can be discussed under the programme item, which is at this meeting or at a future meeting. I refer members to paper 6. Mary, would you give your verbal report, please? The justice sub-committee on policing met on 15 December 2016 and agreed the content of our letter to the justice committee on Police Scotland and the SPA's financial planning for 2017-18. A copy has been included in today's meeting papers. As you can see from the letter, we reached conclusions in relation to the following issues. The forecast overspend of £17.5 million for 2016-17, communicating effectively with staff about financial plans, achieving efficiency savings, tackling new and emerging crimes, undertaking non-criminal work such as assisting those with health issues and VAT liability. I hope that the letter speaks for itself, but I am happy to address any questions or comments that you may have. The committee has previously agreed that the letter has been included as an annex to its report to the finance committee about the 2017-18 draft budget. I thought that this was useful after the discussion that we had last week about more information. It is a very good summary. My question is just, convener—whichever, convener—we have a minute of the meeting added to our desk today, which includes a reference to a vote that took place. For those of us who are not at the sub-committee, was the division Margaret Mitchell asking for an amendment to be included and six members wanting that amendment not to be included? Did the members vote against it because that was not said, or why did they vote against it? That was a—the meeting last week was held in private. So anything that happened in private, the note is— Is this private? No, that is tablet table, and it will be on the website, and it is an explanation of what came out of that meeting. But any discussions that took place were in private, so they would not be anything that would be legitimate questioning for me at this point. What can we do with this minute then? The minute is a matter of record, and that stands. What we are looking at now is, is there any issues, and I suspect there will be from the letter and the areas that the committee looked in the sub-committee, which we might indicate that we want to include for discussion later in our work programme. Stuart Stevenson, and then Douglas. I was just going to make the general point that I think absolutely it should feed into the work programme of the main committee, and indeed the main committee should perhaps give consideration as to whether it wishes to draw the sub-committee's attention to matters, it would wish the sub-committee to address, because it is a sub-committee of the main committee. I remind members that we formed this so that the whole justice committee could be informed and have a view on placing issues, which are very important. The sub-committee is meeting on 12 January, and that is when we are looking at our work programme. If any members have any issues, I think that we should be looking at in relation to the work that we are going to do. I would be happy to be told about that. I think that one of the issues that I wanted to ask as a committee is that if you are not setting your work programme until 12 January, do we have to wait to see what you are looking further into? I think that the I6 issue, there is still some dubiety in this report. The cabinet secretary said that the savings of I6 and IT were not included in the large savings place. Scotland had to make the association a superintendent said that there were issues there. Can we look at that as a full justice committee or is that something that you plan to look at? Anything that is a single letter, we can consider it under our work programme. That would be something that we should look at, because it seemed from this letter from the sub-committee that there were differing opinions as to the savings, where the savings are allocated in terms of any IT savings and how much has been saved or spent in public money, etc. Okay, that is noted. Are we content with that approach to John Finnie? I do not know that there is the uncertainty that Douglas suggests about that issue, but I think that it is very important that it is seen as being inclusive. If we would have it, no members of this committee would feel in any way disenfranchised, but equally, we need to avoid duplication of what we need to avoid. However, if we are making bids, and just since we will be on the record as the work programme will not be on the record, then with almost daily revelations about the impact of surveillance and undercover policing and further ones yesterday, I would be very concerned if there was not attention paid to that by whichever committee, either the substantive committee or the sub-committee, there is widespread public concern about that and the frustration that has gone on to people who are legitimately pursuing issues of being deceived. Julie noted any other questions, if not, then we shall move into private session before I do so. I wish everyone formally a merry Christmas and a relaxing festive period. I suspend the meeting now to allow the public and the official report to leave the room.